Forfeiture Laws Harm Crime Victims

By Jerry Kopel

May 17, 2000

Sometimes, a law intended to punish
the offender ends up punishing the victim. That's the problem with Colorado's forfeiture
law which permits seizure of property by the state, often without the need to prove that
a crime has been committed, and without recompense to persons who have been injured.

Eight years ago, Alamosa attorney Doug George appeared before the House Judiciary
Committee to testify on a bill to change the forfeiture law. While the bill died in
committee, his testimony remains alive and alarming. Here is part of what Mr. George told us, (using initials instead of names):

"In a case I was involved in, the case of Mr. S, a widowed father of three children
was accused of sexually abusing a child. When he was questioned about the accusation by
the police, he immediately confessed to his wrongdoing, expressed his remorse, and plead
"no contest" to the criminal charges.

"He was convicted and was sentenced to community corrections by the court. Since the
crime had taken place in the man's house, which was free and clear of all encumbrances,
the District Attorney's office filed a forfeiture action to divest Mr. S. of all ownership
of the family home.

"If the forfeiture action had run its full course, the girl who was the victim of
the crime, as well as her two brothers, would have been kicked out of the home with
nowhere to go. This would have left the child victim of the crime and her two older
brothers, who were about seventeen or eighteen years old, completely homeless.

"Nevertheless, under the present statutory scheme the prosecution could have taken
the home away from the family as a prize for the man's open confession. The man had been
sentenced to community corrections, so any "nuisance" that the house presented
had already been effectively abated. The only purpose to be served by the forfeiture was
to obtain a free house for the D.A.'s office without regard to the harsh punishment that
would be served upon the innocent victims.

"Even though the children of Mr. S. were innocent victims of the crime and would
lose their home as a result of the forfeiture statute, they could not claim the
protection of an affirmative defense, since they were not owners of the property at the
time the forfeiture action was filed. The children would then have not only been victims
of a father's abuse, but they would have been subject to the abuse of the power of the
current statutory scheme as well."

The end of the story? According to Mr. George, public criticism forced the D.A.'s office
to release the forfeiture claim.

If the same crime had happened under present statutes, Mr. S. would likely have been
sentenced to a prison term, but the children would still have had to contend with
forfeiture of the house. If the D.A. had not seized the house, attorneys could have sought
appointment of a guardian for the girl, sued the father for civil damages and used the damages ordered by the court
to force transfer of title to the house to the children.

This year, Rep. Richard Decker (R-Fountain) and Sen. Bill Thiebaut (D-Pueblo) introduced
HB 1369, to "increase claimant's protections in asset forfeiture actions". The
bill died in House Judiciary Committee following heavy opposition by law enforcement
lobbyists.

Decker's bill would have provided
additional protections for owners or co-owners of property who were innocent of any
wrongdoing and it would have added reasons why a temporary restraining order on property
should be lifted, such as to enable a going business to continue to function. But the
children of Mr. S. would not have been helped by the Decker bill.

There are some amendments to the forfeiture law that are really needed. One was spelled
out in a Rocky Mountain News editorial: "Call us old-fashioned, but we
subscribe to the view that constitutional rights are constitutional rights whatever the alleged crime, meaning a criminal suspect deserves the same procedural safeguards whether
he is charged with selling drugs or selling stolen property.

"In either case, moreover, the state should have to prove a crime before keeping any
property seized at the time of arrest. Currently, prosecutors don't even have to file a
charge against suspects whose assets they covet. Which is why abuses of forfeiture laws
flourish -- and not just in Colorado..."

In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In a
"civil" forfeiture case, they have to prove their case by a preponderance of
the evidence. That is a major drop in the amount of proof needed to show a crime (and
public nuisance) was committed.

And here is an amendment that would have helped the children of Mr. S. Allow the VICTIM of
the crime to be compensated under the statute BEFORE the state and law enforcement
agencies divvy up the money. That would have allowed the children to obtain the house.

At the present time "any person who suffers bodily injury or property damage as a
result of the action which constitutes the nuisance" is treated like the hyena or
vulture who have to wait until after the lions have gorged themselves on the
gazelle.

The law states that law enforcement enrichment
"shall not be the
primary purpose of asset forfeiture." And if it is in the law, it must be true.
Right?

Formerly a Democratic State Representative for 22 years,
Jerry Kopel wrote this article
for the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, http://i2i.org.

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional
rights and public safety.

Nothing written here is to be construed as
necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an
attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send
comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Colorado 80203. Phone 303-279-6536. (email) webmngr @ i2i.org